Nirbhaya Case Verdict - Challenges Ahead

Quite expectedly and welcomingly, the learned judge in the Nirbhaya case pronounced  “death to all” found guilty of committing an act that shook the entire nation, akin to the incidents like attack on our Parliament and the Mumbai attacks.

Quite expectedly again, there were voices from foreign office of UK, and from the EU, besides from Amnesty International which expressed their reservations against this sentence. But, we can choose to ignore the same, as our judicial process is not subservient to international opinion.

With due respects to the Hon’ble Court which pronounced this sentence, which has satisfied the collective conscience of our society, as was evident by the reactions of crowds eagerly awaiting the judgement, one wonders if this sentence would eventually be carried out?

To quote the learned Additional Sessions Judge, “Inhuman acts of torture before her death had not only shocked the collective conscience but calls for withdrawal of the protective arm of the community around these convicts. Accordingly, the convicts be hanged by the neck till they are dead.”

In its twenty page order, the Hon’ble Court said that the criminal justice system needed to instil faith in women by adopting a zero tolerance policy. The “severity” of the injuries and the “unprovoked” suffering inflicted upon the “defenceless” victim were also relied upon by the Hon’ble Court while handing down the Capital punishment.

Going by the past precedents in two cases involving a similar crime, it is observed that while Dhananjay Chatterjee was executed in 2004 for committing a similar crime, Santosh Singh a lawyer by training was spared the gallows by the Hon’b’le Supreme Court, and was made to serve a life sentence. He was held guilty of raping and then murdering Priyadarshini Mattoo. He had even disfigured her face beyond recognition.

In both the cases, the offence was identical with two key differences:

a)     Dhananjay Chatterjee was a security guard while Santosh Singh is a trained lawyer, and

b)    Dhananjay Chatterjee appeared to be unrepentant later, on while the Honb’le Supreme Court was convinced that Santosh Singh can be reformed.

One wonders, if a well educated person like Santosh Singh who was trained to aid the judicial process can commit such a heinous crime can be spared the gallows, ostensibly because of his so-called good behaviour in jail later on, then isn’t there a possibility that these four men do stand a chance of being spared the noose, if they too are perceived to be repentant later on, and on grounds of their young age, poverty, clean antecedents and other mitigating circumstances?

 Secondly, on a technical issue. The facts of the case clearly indicate that the intention of these four men was to inflict severe injuries on Nirbhaya and not to kill her. Else, they could have killed her before leaving the scene of crime, as in the two cases mentioned above. That she was left on the road with severe injuries is a vital fact that cannot be overlooked. This fact contrasts significantly to the Priyadarshini Mattoo case where the victim was killed later by her tormentor, who also disfigured her face beyond recognition before leaving the scene of crime. Going by the acts of savagery and cruelty inflicted on the victim, the depravity of this crime is no less significant as in Nirbhaya’s case.

My objective of highlighting these facts is not to plead for a lighter sentence to the four accused, but to caution the Special Public Prosecutor Dayan Krishnan and his team, of the challenges which lie ahead of them before death sentence is carried out. Yes, they certainly deserve our standing ovation for such a professional job which has earned them plaudits from across the Nation, but this is not the time for them to rest on their laurels.

And finally, according to the Hon’ble Court, for a case to fall under the “rarest of rare” category, perception of the society towards the offence was important. “The Court has to look into factors like society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation, and antipathy to certain types of cases.”

If this yardstick were to be applied to Priyadarshini Mattoo’s case, and to those life convicts who have been held guilty of similar crimes involving minors, then it would appear that the ends of justice have not been met in these cases. That would be really disturbing.